Edwards and Kerry are honored by Whoopi's filth.

Everybody's down on Fox, but I see them presenting both sides all the time.

On Friday on The Radio Factor, Judge Napolitano was mad about the Whoopi Goldberg thing and their gossip/entertainment guy (wish I remembered his name) said the Judge should lighten up because it was really nothing worse than you'd see on Saturday Night Live. So there were two very different viewpoints offered and you could side with either one.

Seems like it was an event for those who attended so was geared to that crowd. People will read about it (or more likely not) and will either be offended or not. If they get bent enough, I'm sure the Johns will hear about it and at least appear to be regretful that things went too far. But I bet they'll keep the money.

On the surface the Republicans look very controlled and restrained, while they are political wh*res for corporate America. They will do anything in any postion in a piece of legislation for their big money contibutors. How shallow can you be, to look at free speech as being a bad thing while the financial markets are riddled with corruption, the environment is being r*ped, and the Constitution is being trampled on.

I realize that many democrats are guilty of this same kind of suit & tie criminality.

Which is more important conducting yourself with decorum or behaving like you actually have a SOUL.

I haven't sold my SOUL to God for a ticket to some supposed heaven or to Satan for some rich powerful earthly existence. I can't speak for others.

Originally posted by torque
Everybody's down on Fox, but I see them presenting both sides all the time.

On Friday on The Radio Factor, Judge Napolitano was mad about the Whoopi Goldberg thing and their gossip/entertainment guy (wish I remembered his name) said the Judge should lighten up because it was really nothing worse than you'd see on Saturday Night Live. So there were two very different viewpoints offered and you could side with either one.

Your Radio Factor example is the exception and not the rule. Checkout hannity and combs, they might as well provide Hannity with a punching bag in place of combs. If they desire balance, I would suggest they get somebody like ron reagan. Hannitys loud brainless comments would be dog meat versus reagan the younger. Fox feigns balance by providing a weak and unskilled speaker on the liberal side while providing a dominant speaker on conservative side. Seperate but not equal.

Wake Up America
.

It might depend on which side of the fence you ride, though. I've watched Hannity and Colmes plenty of times and seen the liberal side presented just as rediculously complete with name calling and one-liners in place of fact. It's the type of show it is. It will please some and disappoint others.

I like O'Reilly. I don't always agree with him all the time, but there are many times I think he's right on. That's what I like about Fox and all the channels, really. I get to receive what they offer and make my own mind up about it. Being fair and balanced is up to the individual within themselves. Take the facts from all sources and make up your own mind. That's what it should be about. Anyone who relies on any one newspaper or channel to spoon feed them their opinion is not in the game anyway. There are people who could watch a completely no-spin, clinically factual network and still would find problems with it. It's human nature.

I always wonder how Hannity and Colmes get along offstage. I used to hear that Siskel and Ebert were terrible enemies, and I wonder if these guys are too. I can't imagine that company picnic! *L*

I watch Hannity and Colmes and Cross-fire on CNN is also pretty good. I like shows like that I find If you watch alittle of both CNN and FOX you get a better picture. I really dont know how people can only pick one channel and stick with that one. Mix it up through in alittle MSNBC to the mix and then watch some cartoons or something to relax

One thing for certain, the hatred expressed by those who don't want Bush in office is much, much uglier than anything portrayed by those who wished Clinton would go away. Worse than the feelings many have for Sen. H Clinton.
I gotta say, you dems sure know how to hate, which BTW, is not a virtue.

Whether a dem or a repub, they both answer to the same master: those who really rule this country!

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Whether a dem or a repub, they both answer to the same master: those who really rule this country!

I agree that both parties answer to the same master. Unfortunately that master is the almighty dollar and not the people. I suppose I am an equal opportunity hater. I despise bush whereas I only have a gross dislike of kerry. Given this reality, I would rather laugh with whoopi than cry with the republicans but I will vote libertarian. The demopublicans have nothing to offer me and I can't afford to buy a congressman.
.

[edit on 13-7-2004 by df1]

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
One thing for certain, the hatred expressed by those who don't want Bush in office is much, much uglier than anything portrayed by those who wished Clinton would go away. Worse than the feelings many have for Sen. H Clinton.
I gotta say, you dems sure know how to hate, which BTW, is not a virtue.

This is a joke right? Please tell me it is a joke. Were you old enough to know the hate for the Clintons spewed for eight years by right-wing hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh? From the day Clinton took office, the Republicans were desperately trying to dig up dirt on Clinton and remove him from office. After eight years, all they could come up with was a lie in a deposition in answer to a question about his personal sex life. The trial judge later ruled that the question should have never been asked, since it was irrelevant to the question of whether Clinton sexually harrassed Paula Jones. The Supreme Court showed its partisanship in allowing such a frivolous lawsuit against a sitting President. That's all you people ever got on Clinton, yet Republicans still regularly defame and lie about both Clintons.

You Republicans love to claim that Bush's critics hate him. Well, maybe some do. But it is nothing compared to the venomous hatred many Republicans have for the Clintons to this day.

Most critics of Bush just want him out of the White House because he has shown himself to be totally incompetent and unqualified to be President. Because his irresponsible tax cuts have taken the Federal Government from a budget surplus of $280 billion to a budget deficit of $500 billion in four years. Because his insane Iraq War has wasted $125 billion and cost over 800 American lives. Not to mention over 17,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

Those who hate Bush do so because of his policies and their disasterous results for the country. That is not the case for the Clinton haters. Did the Clinton haters hate him because he took the government from a large budget deficit to a large budget surplus? Because he reduced the size of the Federal Government? Because he reformed welfare? Because he enacted NAFTA and other free-trade agreements? Because he presided over the creation of 22 million jobs in eight years? No, the Clinton haters hate him precisely because he was so successful, and because he is so intelligent and well-educated.

So please, stop whining about people hating Bush so much. People who do hate Bush have good reason to do so. The Clinton haters have nothing but their own spitefulness and ignorance.

The disgraceful treatment of Clinton by Republican hatemongers has forever disqualified them from complaining about hatred of Republican Presidents. You know what they say about payback.




[edit on 7/13/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 7/13/2004 by donguillermo]

Originally posted by donguillermo
So please, stop whining about people hating Bush so much. People who do hate Bush have good reason to do so. The Clinton haters have nothing but their own spitefulness and ignorance.

The disgraceful treatment of Clinton by Republican hatemongers has forever disqualified them from complaining about hatred of Republican Presidents. You know what they say about payback.

So is this really what the political climate of our country has now been reduced to? Payback.

I suppose we can expect the same from Republicans if Kerry wins. You know I see more and more members of the ATS community and the US in general becoming apathetic and disillusioned - it's very evident why.

Just another reason IMO to vote for a third party candidate and let both parties know that "payback" is not what we need or want.

Originally posted by Bleys

So is this really what the political climate of our country has now been reduced to? Payback.

I suppose we can expect the same from Republicans if Kerry wins. You know I see more and more members of the ATS community and the US in general becoming apathetic and disillusioned - it's very evident why.

Just another reason IMO to vote for a third party candidate and let both parties know that "payback" is not what we need or want.

I agree if you vote Dem or Rep and you expect major polices changes in the US if Kerry or Bush wins its not going to happen. We are not going to pull out of IRAQ we are not going to change anything in any major way. They both have the same agendas.

I think its time the Third party became a real political force in the US heck I want a fourth and fifth party. The Dems and Reps are more alike then most people think.

www.abc.net.au...

Now she's lost her job with Slim Fast. Seems extreme, but maybe she can go back to Entenmann's. *L*

Has anyone here actually seen or heard the Woopi rant? Is there video or audio? How can we judge these alledged comments unless we hear them for ourselves?

You said it Whoopi! I couldn't agree with you more. You are a big loser! Get a job!

A good number of Canadians and Europeans almost busted a gut laughing when the entire hoopla about Bill Clinton happened. As my boss back then said... "If he's 50 years old and he's still able to get some with a 22 year old, he should be congratulated, not impeached! Besides, it's probably his last pit stop before old age!"

Send us Bill Clinton, we'd love having him as our Prime Minister.

That's the thing... I think a good number of Republicans as a prerequisite have their sense of humor surgically removed (edited to specify: re Whoopi Goldberg's stint about Bush, that is).

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Otts]

I've been looking for a transcript of what exactly Whoopi said, and I can't find it. I'm wondering how outrageous is something that nobody can seem to even hear or find text for? Seems the people who heard it were the people there. But I see Chevy Chase constantly quoted as saying "Clinton plays sax, Kerry plays guitar, and the president's a liar". The entertainment correspondent for Fox News said that wasn't what was said. What was said was "Clinton plays sax, Kerry plays guitar, and the president a lyre" for a (not very funny anyway) play on words. But in all the news stories I see, it comes out as "... the president's a liar".

My question now is... what did she say? If I can't even find it to read or see, why should I be outraged? Because some newspapers and pundits say I should?

www.mediaresearch.org...

A look at how the progression of how the media handled the story.

Freedom of speech is one thing...coming up with rhymes of Bush's names with female genitals is another...she's a bit sad and desperate, but she makes herself look like a fool..really, who gives a # about what whoopi goldberg says anyway?

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Shoktek]